DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims 1-16 are currently pending and have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on the merits (FAOM).
Examiner's Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs/columns and line numbers or figures in the
references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the
specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific
limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is
respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the
references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as
the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is
reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the
language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicant's definition which is not specifically set forth in the disclosure.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 7 and 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 7 recites “the number of laps” and there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. As best understood, the claim will be interpreted to be referring to a number of laps.
Claims 9-10 and 12 recite “the third received power” and there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if this is referring to the first received power, the second received power, or a newly introduced third received power. The metes and bounds of the claim limitation are vague and ill-defined, rendering the claim indefinite. As best understood, the claim will be interpreted broadly such that it is referring to either the first received power, the second received power, or a third received power.
Claim 11 recites “the estimation result” and there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. As best understood, the claim will be interpreted to be referring to an estimation result.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent on rejected claim 12 and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-10 and 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claims are either directed to an apparatus, which is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES)
The examiner has identified claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis. Claim 1 recites the limitations of:
“information processing apparatus comprising a processor configured to: acquire first received power on a route of a moving vehicle passing between a signal emission source and a radio wave shield, based on radio waves emitted from the signal emission source, in a state in which the radio wave shield for blocking the radio waves is arranged at a first position; acquire second received power, which is a radio wave emitted from the signal emission source and measured on the route, in a state in which the radio wave shield is not arranged at the first position; and set a part of an area on the route as a target area used for processing related to control of the moving vehicle, based on an index related to fluctuation between the first received power and the second received power.”
The limitations of set a part of an area on the route as a target area used for processing related to control of the moving vehicle, based on an index related to fluctuation between the first received power and the second received power, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a processor configured to”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the human mind. For example, but for the “processor” language, set a part of an area on the route as a target area used for processing related to control of the moving vehicle, based on an index related to fluctuation between the first received power and the second received power, in the context of the claim encompasses a person mentally performing a comparison to determine a difference in received powers and selecting an area based on the determination. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas. (Step2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims are abstract)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Limitations that are
not indicative of integration into a practical application include: (1) Adding the words "apply it"
(or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract
idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP
2106.05.f), (2) Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP
2106.05.g), (3) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological
environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05.h).
In particular, the claims recite additional elements of using a processor to perform the recited steps. The processor is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The limitations of acquiring first and second received power are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., a general means of gathering data used for the determining step) and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an "inventive concept") to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements claimed amount to insignificant extra-solution activities. See 2106.05(g) for more details. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, cannot provide an inventive concept- rendering the claim patent ineligible. Thus claim 1 (and similarly claim 16) is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Claims 2-10 and 12-15 further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims and hence are abstract for at least the reasons presented above. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Dependent claims 2-8 and 13 also include mathematical processes (VIP and PLS regression). Therefore, the dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the aforementioned claims are not patent-eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 9-10, 12, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nishikawa (US 2023/0155422 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Nishikawa discloses an information processing apparatus comprising a processor configured to: acquire first received power on a route of a moving vehicle passing between a signal emission source and a radio wave shield, based on radio waves emitted from the signal emission source, in a state in which the radio wave shield for blocking the radio waves is arranged at a first position (see at least Abstract, Figs. 4, 6, [0037-0039, 0042, 0046] – measurement device 20 may be attached to an AGV… AGV moves in a warehouse… radio waves from a transmission source (shown as a circular figure) are shielded by obstacles (shown as rectangular figures)… measurement device 20 moves and measures the received power); acquire second received power, which is a radio wave emitted from the signal emission source and measured on the route, in a state in which the radio wave shield is not arranged at the first position (see at least Abstract, Figs. 4, 6, [0037-0039, 0055-0059] – detect the presence of the obstacle according to the received power… newly occurring obstacle); and set a part of an area on the route as a target area used for processing related to control of the moving vehicle, based on an index related to fluctuation between the first received power and the second received power (see at least Figs. 4, 6-7, [0037-0039, 0059, 0065-0066] - A1 is an area in which radio waves to be transmitted from a transmission source are interrupted by a newly occurring obstacle, and the received power is estimated to be lowered… measurement value… received power distribution by using the IDW method or the Kriging method).
Regarding claim 9, Nishikawa discloses wherein the processor is configured to execute a process related to the control of the moving vehicle, based on the third received power measured in the target area (see at least Figs. 4, 6, [0037-0039, 0059, 0065-0066, 0072]).
Regarding claim 10, Nishikawa discloses the information processing apparatus of claim 9, wherein the processor is configured to execute a process of estimating the presence or absence of the radio wave shield based on the third received power measured in the target area as the process related to the control of the moving vehicle (see at least Figs. 4, 6, [0037-0039, 0059, 0065-0066, 0072]).
Regarding claim 12, Nishikawa discloses the information processing apparatus of claim 9, wherein the processor is configured to execute a process of calculating a coefficient used to estimate the presence or absence of the radio wave shield, based on the third received power measured in the target area, which is part of the first and second received power, as the process related to the control of the moving vehicle (see at least Figs. 4, 6, [0037-0039, 0059, 0065-0066, 0072]).
Regarding claim 14, Nishikawa discloses a system comprising: the information processing apparatus of claim 1, and the signal emission source (see at least [0044]).
Regarding claim 15, Nishikawa discloses the system of claim 14, further comprising the moving vehicle (see at least [0042]).
Regarding claim 16, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 1, and it has been determined that claim 16 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in claim 1; therefore, claim 16 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishikawa in view of Winkle (US 2019/041225 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Nishikawa does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the processor is configured to control the mobile vehicle, based on the estimation result.
Winkle teaches the following limitations: wherein the processor is configured to control the mobile vehicle, based on the estimation result (see at least Abstract, Fig. 4, [0002, 0019, 0044] – navigation route to guide the autonomous drone to avoid the lower coverage zone).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Winkle into the invention of Nishikawa with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of prevent the signal path to the vehicle from being temporarily blocked so that the vehicle can maintain communication during transit, thereby maximizing the time that the vehicle can communicate during transit (Winkle – [0019]).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishikawa in view of Zhou (CN 104581644 A, a machine translation is attached and is being relied upon).
Regarding claim 13, Nishikawa discloses wherein the processor is configured to calculate the coefficient (see at least Figs. 4, 6, [0037-0039, 0059, 0065-0066, 0072]).
Nishikawa does not appear to explicitly disclose by applying Partial Least Squares (PLS) regression.
Zhou, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: by applying Partial Least Squares (PLS) regression (see at least [0010, 0018, 0026-0027, 0044]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Zhou into the invention of Nishikawa with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of improving positioning accuracy while greatly reducing the computation time overhead of the system (Zhou – [0008]). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art could apply a known technique (PLS is a known statistical method) to a specific application (Nishikawa’s coefficient) to yield predictable results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and if claim 7 is rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art does disclose or render obvious the following limitation of claim 2 in its entirety: “The information processing apparatus of claim 1, wherein the index related to the fluctuation between the first received power and the second received power includes Variable Influence on Projection (VIP)”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record, and not relied upon, considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure or directed to the state of art is listed on the enclosed PTO-982. The following is a brief description for relevant prior art that was cited but not applied:
Lau (US 2015/0312774 A1) is directed to a wireless coverage characterization platform uses an autonomous vehicle or robot, such as an unmanned aerial vehicle or other small robot, to autonomously collect key wireless coverage parameters for an indoor environment. One or more vehicles or robots are equipped with integrated simultaneous localization and mapping sensors as well as wireless signal measurement sensors. As a vehicle traverses the indoor environment, on-board processing components process the sensor measurement data to simultaneously build an indoor map of the environment and to learn the wireless coverage characteristics of the environment incrementally. The vehicle's navigation system guides the vehicle through the environment based on the sensor measurements and the learned indoor map until a complete map of the wireless signal strength at all locations throughout the environment is obtained. The system can identify areas of weak wireless coverage or interference sources and recommend access point device locations based on results of the survey.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAITLIN MCCLEARY whose telephone number is (703)756-1674. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00 am - 7:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Navid Z Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571) 272-7691. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/C.R.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669